The coronavirus pandemic is creating challenges for all sectors of the economy, including for various business professionals. While some steps have been taken to mitigate immediate concerns, professionals must remain aware of their obligations and be mindful of potential pitfalls in this uncertain environment.

For example, the legal profession, which typically relies on in-person appearances,

On March 18, 2019, Bill A-4880 passed the New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee. If the bill becomes law, it will amend the governing statute, N.J.S.2A:14-1, by shortening the statute of limitations for claims of malpractice against certain licensed professionals (including lawyers) from six years to two years. The amendment will also prohibit the award of

On February 27, 2019, in Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. _ (2019), the Supreme Court of the United States, in a split decision, eased a client’s burden of establishing harm for the purposes of making an ineffective assistance of counsel argument against his former criminal defense lawyer.

The Sixth Amendment provides that a criminal defendant

On October 17, 2018, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion No. 483 addressing lawyers’ and law firms’ professional responsibilities during and after a cyber event. A link to the Opinion can be found here. Although advisory in nature and not binding in a court of law, lawyers would do

David Wilck has co-authored a USLAW article, “Navigating the One-Client/Two-Client Tripartite Relationship Between the Carrier, Insured, and Defense Counsel,” in the Fall/Winter issue of USLAW Magazine.

Click here to read the Article.

The United States District Court, Western District of New York recently held that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state a claim pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487, and the fact that there was no criminal conviction of the defendant lawyers for violating the statute did not prevent plaintiff from proceeding with her claim.

In

The Appellate Division, First Department recently reversed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment on liability in favor of the legal malpractice plaintiff and dismissing the defendant law firm’s counterclaims for legal fees.

In Genesis Merchant Partners, L.P. v. Gilbride, Tusa, Last & Spellane, LLC, the plaintiffs, who are related venture capital firms, sued the

The Appellate Division, First Department recently held that a legal malpractice action could withstand a law firm’s motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that plaintiff failed to plead the “but for” causation element of the claim, reversing the trial court’s dismissal.

In Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. v. Morrison & Foerster LLP, Supreme Court,

The United States District Court, Southern District of New York recently held that a legal malpractice action could withstand a law firm’s motion to dismiss when the law firm’s retainer agreement was broadly written and did not clearly define the scope of the firm’s representation.

In Mitchell Barack v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, (Civil Action

Data often is the lifeblood of a business. When a database is breached in one way or another, the results can be devastating—especially if the data falls into the hands of a competitor.

Many companies suffering this kind of loss turn to litigation. Perhaps in an effort to obtain federal court jurisdiction, they may assert